Download Free Assessment Progress In Kentucky Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Assessment Progress In Kentucky and write the review.

The framework for teaching document is an evolving instrument, but the core concepts and architecture (domains, components, and elements) have remained the same.Major concepts of the Common Core State Standards are included. For example, deep conceptual understanding, the importance of student intellectual engagement, and the precise use of language have always been at the foundation of the Framework for Teaching, but are more clearly articulated in this edition.The language has been tightened to increase ease of use and accuracy in assessment.Many of the enhancements to the Framework are located in the possible examples, rather than in the rubric language or critical attributes for each level of performance.

Status Report

Kentucky. Department of Education. Bureau of Administration and Finance. Division of Finance

Published: 1962

Total Pages: 70


Get eBook

In recent years, in an effort to avoid the degradation of instruction and inflation of test scores that often occurred when educators were held accountable for scores on multiple-choice tests, policymakers have experimented with accountability systems based on performance assessments. The Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS), which rewarded or sanctioned schools largely on the basis of changes in scores on a complex, partially performance-based assessment, was an archetype of this wave of reform. It is not a given, however, that performance assessment can avoid the inflation of scores that arises when teachers and students focus too narrowly on the content of the assessment used for accountability rather than focusing on the broad domains of achievement the assessment is intended to measure. Accordingly, this study evaluated the extent to which the large performance gains shown on KIRIS represented real improvements in student learning rather than inflation of scores. External evidence of validity--that is, comparisons to other test data--suggests that KIRIS gains were substantially inflated. Even though KIRIS was designed partially to reflect the frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), large KIRIS gains in fourth-grade reading from 1992 to 1994 had no echo in NAEP scores. Large KIRIS gains in mathematics from 1992 to 1994 in the fourth and eighth grades did have some echo in NAEP scores, but Kentucky's NAEP gains were roughly one-fourth as large as the KIRIS gains and were typical of gains shown in other states. The large gains high-school students showed on KIRIS in mathematics and reading were not reflected in their scores on the American College Testing (ACT) college-admissions tests. KIRIS science gains were accompanied by ACT gains only one-fifth as large. Internal evidence of validity--that is, evidence based on patterns within the KIRIS data themselves--was more ambiguous but also provided some warning of likely inflation, particularly in mathematics. For example, schools that showed large gains on KIRIS also tended to show larger than average discrepancies in performance between new and reused test items, suggesting that teachers had coached students narrowly on the content of previous tests. The findings of this study indicate that inflation of scores remains a risk in assessment-based accountability systems even when they rely on test formats other than multiple choice. There is a clear need to evaluate the results and effects of assessment-based accountability systems, and better methods for evaluating the validity of gains need to be developed.
The implementation of a 'high stakes', performace-based assessment system has resulted in financial rewards being granted to those schools demonstrating improved results, while sanctions have been imposed on schools whose academic performance is poor. Contributors to this book examine the complex issues associated with this system in the state of Kentucky and offer diverse opinion on the topic.
This report describes and compares the inclusive assessment and accountability systems of Maryland and Kentucky, with a focus on components, scoring methods, reporting practices, data use, participation of students with disabilities, testing accommodations, and implementation considerations (including cost and training issues). Maryland and Kentucky practices are then contrasted to those used in other states. Results of the study indicate that both states have multiple forms of assessment and explicit procedures for deciding who participates in the various assessments. In both Maryland and Kentucky, schools are held accountable for improved student performance. In Maryland, schools are expected to show progress toward state-defined long-term goals. In Kentucky, schools are expected to improve over baseline performance. Both states and most others permit accommodations in assessments. However, Maryland and Kentucky are among the very few states that have an alternate assessment system that permits participation by students with severe disabilities. The report concludes that the assessment and accountability systems used in Kentucky and Maryland serve as good models for other states. Appendices include samples of released items and scoring guides from the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program and from the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. (Contains 12 references.) (CR).